From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 29 2002 - 20:06:53 MST
[Joe Dees] I'll leave it up to Hermit to explain why the very idea of
'before' the genesis of a matter/energy space/time universe is fallacious...
[Hermit] You really are a bitch <grin>. Why don't I get any easy ones? This
concept is hard to grasp because it is seems counter to our common sense (as
so many things are at the quantum and cosmological levels because we lack
direct experience).
[Hermit] Here is the short version. For the long version I recommend
visiting
[url=http://search.nap.edu/nap-cgi/napsearch.cgi?term=cosmology]Cosmology
related books, readable on-line, from the National Academy of
Sciences[/url]. Alternatively, try to get hold of
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465024378/thehermit0d]"The
First Three Minutes", Steven Weinberg[/url], a little dated but still
offering a good overview of the "dawn of time."
[Hermit] Essentially the Universe was instantiated by the Big Bang, and in
the first few moments of the Universe there was no time. First gravity split
off, as the Universe coalesced, followed by the beginning of the Grand
Unification Epoch (BB + 10^-43 to 10^-35 seconds) and subsequently the
strong force, which in turn lead to the Inflation Epoch when all the
physical laws that govern the Universe were determined by the energy
distributions which occurred. One of the attributes of the Universe created
by the separation of the forces was "time" which is so interwoven with
"space" that the two terms cannot be meaningful (in cosmological terms)
without each other.
[Hermit] Until space-time existed, there was no time, so to speak of
"before" that occurred is to use a term which is, in all possible senses
meaningless. When there is only a seamless field of possibilities (the
vacuum flux), there can be no before or after. It is only when a reference
frame is established that time becomes meaningful.
Regards
Hermit
PS Regarding "virus: Whaddabout the Mind Candy?", it is [i]apodictically
self-evident[/i] <grin> that it is a well structured argument (and equally
[i]apodictically self-evident[/i]that it has been constructed in an
extremely dense (in the sense of terse) format) which would require more
time than I have right now to crack-open and expand upon. It concerns me (as
in bothers me somewhat, but not enough to beat non-stop on my keyboard for a
week) that it appears that time is being dealt with, by some very
heavy-hitters, apart from the concept of the reference frame, because
synchronicity/simultaneity are, in my opinion an abstraction of perception,
rather than a realizable aspect of the Universe, except as a gross
approximation. Not having the time to address this well, I preferred not to
address it at all. Which is why I let it stand as it is.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT